S.K. Saxena, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18/12/2014 passed by City Magistrate, Gorakhpur in case No. 24 under Section 133 Cr.P.C., directing revisionist to remove the encroachment within a week, failing which face prosecution under Section 188 IPC.
(2.) I have heard Sri P.K. Srivastava for respondent and learned AGA. None appeared for the revisionist. I have perused the record. Briefly stated revisionist's case is that an application was filed by Smt. Manorama Srivastava before City Magistrate, whereupon Police submitted report to the effect that revisionist -Smt. Ramawati has closed the public way creating obstruction in movement of the common people. Agreeing with the report of the Police, City Magistrate issued a conditional order on 25/07/2013 under Section 133(1) Cr.P.C. Smt. Ramawati in her statement before learned Magistrate alleged that she had been living with her husband and children in House No. 311, since long as tenant, which house has been purchased by her. No encroachment has been done by her. After demolishing old house, new construction has been made and report of the Police is not correct. A civil suit was filed for injunction bearing suit No. 1044 of 2013. Notice has been issued without hearing as such same may be rescinded etc. etc.
(3.) COMPLAINANT stated that area of plot No. 264 is only 650 sq. feet while total construction made is on 1100 sq. feet, which is definitely an encroachment warranting intervention under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Width of the public street was eight feet, which has been reduced to two feet. Moreover, Smt. Ramawati Devi had purchased the house covering the area of 967 sq. feet and there is encroachment on public road. Complainant's case is that revisionist had constructed RCC pillars, blocked the road and overhanging projections have been built, restricting the movement in public street.;